I promised before my trip I’d distill my thoughts on Wikipedia, and as a warm-up to what I’m sure will be a fusillade of posts on Turkey. I’ll get to Turkey on my flight to Omaha.
We’ve all heard about Linux and the Open-source revolution. Those of you more familiar with me know how I evangelize Open-Source ad nauseam to all my friends. If you’re one of the unfortunate few, skip ahead a couple of paragraphs. If not, let me briefly introduce the concept of open-source, which is more often than not misconstrued. Everyone rages about Linux but most miss the point behind it.
It’s a collaborative effort, not a towering monument to one person’s vision.
Back in the summer of ‘04 I read Eric S. Raymond’s book entitled The Cathedral and the Bazaar (I have since also read Hackers & Painters, which is a great ethnographical work of the hacker culture). His thesis is that while traditional development models apply massive manpower towards building a vision put forth by one man (“cathedral”), the most efficient way to develop effectively is by banking on people’s many different agendas and approaches (“bazaar”), from which an efficient system emerges. I do not do ESR’s definition of it justice, so I encourage you read it (for free) at his website.
Wikipedia is open-source. This however, is oversimplifying the issue. The exchange of information in a place like Wikipedia goes much much beyond the articles. One interesting exercise in epistemology is watching the discussions which go on in the
homonymous tab at the top of each article. Those who wish to change something in an article, may do so freely and somewhat anonymously. Ultimately, those who wish to incorporate a certain aspect of, say, the P-51 Mustang fighter, can do so without much of a hassle. Conversely, that change can just as easily be undone by the next person (at the risk of being locked in one state or another by a moderator). The epistemology comes out with controversial issues, where some people attempt to rationally discuss how to best depict the article in a neutral point-of-view.
This sounds like a mess. But this is exactly the bazaar ESR was talking about–people with different agendas and interests who in the end share the same goal–provide a comprehensive reference source with a neutral point of view. Those who wish to push their own agenda must justify it to his peers who are also able to edit his work. And (somehow) this works.
Wikipedia’s potential make it sound like the library at Alexandria reincarnated as endless streams of zeros and ones.
Like the Library, though, Wikipedia has become a pyre yearning for a spark. One of Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, came out with a critique of the current state of affairs at Wikipedia. He says that, due to its radically open nature, it is also anti-elitist, meaning that there is no deference to the experts, who will be forced to defend their opinions (if not compromise it) to others who might not be as versed in the topics in question
It’s not perfect, but it’s certainly a start. I for one have lost count of the many hours I’ve spent “hyperlinking” from one article to the next. It’s an information-addict’s worse nightmare.
ric
P.S. One interesting topic I’m considering distilling later on is the economical impact of an open-source model. Ah, maybe I’ll save it for that Masters’ thesis… Who cares about “dollar voting” anyways